On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:08AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > > >>Alfredo Braunstein wrote: > >>>conveys all the information. I'm not religious about this, but now we > >>>have some methods that receive baselines and some others that receive > >>>frames... > >>I will correct the remaining problems. > > > >Ok. Note that I nobody disagrees with the general view (I don't know if I > >explained myself enough before). > > I cannot parse what's above ;-) > > >It's just that the baseline is as good as > >anything else for specifying the position of the frame (for instance, why > >don't we use bottom_y instead of top_y, no particular reason), > > Oh yes, there is a reason, we know where to start and that is the > top-left corner (i.e. y = 0). I grant you we could also draw from the > bottom but that would necessitate a lot of coordinate changing. > > >and we use > >baseline everywhere [i.e. in the lyx sources, if the object has a > >Dimension, "y" == "baseline"]. So are we really sure this battle is worth > >fighting (I mean changing everything to understand top_y). > > I think there is a misundertanding here... I agree that the baseline is > the reference and I did not change that philosophy I think. For me the > baseline is the baseline of the inset, not the baseline of the inner > Text. The fact that InsetCollapsable adjust its baseline to its inner > Text is just a special case.
Baseline used to be what LaTeX considers as basline. In nested text that's usually the baseline of the first row. Although this lead in some cases to + x - x style computation it is a simple rule to remember and I do not really want to see that changed, even if it saves a few (i.e. < 10) lines. Andre' >
